0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Lawrence v Chief Constable of Staffordshire, Court of Appeal, 29 June 2000

12 July 2000
The issues


The facts

The facts of this case are largely unimportant. The Claimant however was awarded £16,000.00 as General Damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenity for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident. He was then awarded interest at 2% from the date of the summons to the date of judgment. This amounted to £1,205.09.

The decision

The main judgment was given by Lord Justice May and an Appeal by the Claimant in respect of an award of 2% for General Damages. The Claimant submitted that the guideline rate of interest to be awarded in personal injury cases on the amount of General Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity should be increased from 2% to 3%. The existing guideline rate of 2% derives from Birkett v Hayes 1982 1W.L.R.816.

Lord Justice May held that there was no intrinsic reason why the guideline rate of return to be used for calculation for future loss should be the same as the guideline rate of interest on General Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. He emphasised that his historic guidelines had been different. Further, that the rates served different purposes. Interest on General Damages is to compensate for delay in receiving payment as at the date of judgment of a sum which was notionally payable at an earlier date.

For Wells v Wells purposes, the rate of return is a component of an actuarial calculation of future loss. Actuarial calculation attempts to be accurate. By contrast, General Damages are a conventional sum and interest on them is discretionary.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up